Rebekah Caldwell Mason, a married mother of three from Bentley's home base of Tuscaloosa, was the governor's mistress in an affair that sources say raises a number of possible legal issues--including use of the state jet and a state trooper's services for personal reasons that had nothing to do with Bentley's official role.

According to Dianne Bentley's divorce complaint, the couple separated in January 2015 because of a "complete incompatibility of temperament" and a "conflict of personalities which destroys the legitimate aims of matrimony." In fact, sources say, Gov. Bentley's affair with Mason destroyed the matrimonial bonds.

The 72-year-old Bentley, a Republican serving in his second term, repeatedly has touted his Christian faith and conservative "family values" to attract voters. He long has served as a deacon at First Baptist Church of Tuscaloosa. Bentley made national headlines in 2011 when, shortly after his inauguration, he said, ""Anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister. And I want to be your brother."

Rebekah Caldwell Mason, sources say, quickly became more than just a communications director to Bentley. Their affair became so widely known that it diluted any moral authority the governor might have had. "He's been impotent as governor for at least the last six months," one source told Legal Schnauzer. "People have been going into his office and saying, 'Do what I want or I'm going to play the girlfriend card.' People have been running all over him."

Who is Rebekah Caldwell Mason? She first came to public attention while serving as press secretary for Bentley's 2010 campaign. When Bentley rose from relative obscurity to win the GOP primary and defeat Democrat Ron Sparks in the general election, Mason became the new governor's communications director.

On Twitter, Mason describes herself as follows:

Wife, Mom of 3. Fan of Football. Business Owner. Senior Advisor for a great Gov. Love Family, Jesus and Reece's (sic) Cups. Not necessarily in that order.

Sources describe Mason as "between the ages of 38 and 40," meaning she is more than 30 years Bentley's junior. She is a former television newscaster and the wife of a former TV weatherman. An article at Yellowhammer News, portrays her as a highly influential figure in the governor's camp:

It’s easy to forget, but there was a time when Robert Bentley was a little-known state representative from Tuscaloosa launching a long-shot bid for governor. Very few people believed he had much of a chance against better funded candidates. But Mason was one of the true believers from the very beginning.

After Bentley was elected, Mason came into the administration as Communications Director. Bentley World has been basically devoid of controversy, which can be attributed in part to Mason’s deft handling of the communications shop.

Now that she’s moved outside of the administration, it’s freed her up to take on a greater role in shaping the big-picture direction of the governor’s office and re-election campaign, rather than having to get bogged down in the day-to-day operations.

Staffers and administration officials frequently bring problems or ideas to Mason first to find out how to best present them to the governor. And she’s written or refined pretty much any important speech or comment the governor has given over the last four years.

“Rebekah’s the governor’s voice,” one senior administration staffer told Yellowhammer. “I don’t think you can overstate how influential she is when it comes to the message the public hears from this governor.”

As it turns out, Mason might have been too influential. The Bentley-Mason affair, in the aftermath of Dianne Bentley's divorce complaint, has left the governor's administration teetering. Legal fallout from the affair could have ugly consequences, including Bentley's resignation and a possible criminal investigation. From one source:

I have . . . been told that Bentley's trooper facilitated the affair, and that the state jet was used extensively to facilitate it. And that Bentley and Mason actually used it as a bedroom at times when Mrs. Bentley was still living in the mansion. . . . The use of state resources to facilitate an affair would surely violate state law; guess it would be difficult to prove since I'm sure the woman's name likely did not appear on the jet's flight log.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Birmingham attorney Rob Campbell, according to his profile at the hacked Ashley Madison Web site, likes to provide oral sex. But that apparently does not apply to his wife because Campbell describes himself on the extramarital-affair site as a "single male, seeking female."

That surely would be news to his wife, lawyer and Republican Party operative Minda Riley Campbell, who happens to be the daughter of former Alabama governor Bob Riley (GOP, 2003-11).

Records show that Campbell, a partner at the Bradley Arant Boult Cummings (BABC) law firm, joined Ashley Madison at 10:16 a.m. on Sept. 1, 2014. He used a computer with an outbound IP address of 107.139.149.253, which was located on or near the 700/800 block of Zelda Place in Homewood, Alabama. The Campbells' home address is 700 Zelda Place, Birmingham, Alabama, 35209.

Campbell has made at least three Ashley Madison purchases this year, each for an amount of $19.99. His billing address is 1819 Fifth Ave. N, Birmingham, AL 35203. That's the address for Bradley Arant.

An overview of Campbell's Ashley Madison profile can be viewed at the end of this post. His user name is "Anything Goes," and he describes himself as a "45-year-old professional looking for new friends and adventures."

Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Documents show that the son-in-law of former Alabama governor Bob Riley is among the participants in Ashley Madison, the Web site designed to facilitate extramarital affairs.

Account information for Rob Campbell, a partner at the Birmingham law firm Bradley Arant Boult Cummings (BABC), appears in the data dumped from a hack of some 37 million Ashley Madison users around the globe. Sources have compiled a list of Alabama users, many of them prominent individuals (lawyers, doctors, CEOs, CFOs, etc.), and we are planning a series of posts on the subject.

Rob Campbell is married to Minda Riley Campbell, daughter to the former governor and sister to Homewood attorney and Republican Party operative Rob Riley. Here is how Rob Campbell's Ashley Madison information appears in one database compiled of Alabama users:

The number after Campbell's name is the amount of money he has spent with Ashley Madison, according to the data dump. The address for him--1819 Fifth Ave N, Birmingham, 35203--is the address for Bradley Arant. Sources say Rob Campbell is one of several Bradley Arant lawyers on the list.

We sought comment from both Rob Campbell and Minda Riley Campbell, but they did not respond to our queries.

Our sources are combing through that information now, and it is expected to be in publishable form in a few days. Henry County Report, a Web site based in southeast Alabama, already has published nude photos (with strategically placed black boxes) of a lawyer and a doctor from the Dothan area.

Slabbed, an alternative news site based in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, linked to a Pastebin URL, which contained data for Ashley Madison users in Louisiana and Mississippi. Publisher Doug Handshoe said his site has been overwhelmed with readers since publishing the Ashley Madison lists, causing Slabbed to crash several times in recent days. Handshoe said in a comment at the site that a normal month's worth of visitors had come to the site in the past two or three days.

In a post last night, Handshoe said Slabbed received more than 1,000 visits in a 10-minute period yesterday afternoon. The site temporarily disabled two posts on the Ashley Madison queries in order to reduce traffic to a manageable level and get back online.

How many visits did Rob Campbell make to Ashley Madison, and what did those visits entail? We likely will have that information soon--for Campbell and a number of other prominent Alabamians.

Why was Bradley Arant so popular with the Riley administration, to the point that the firm was showered with millions of taxpayer dollars? One reason appears to be that Rob Campbell worked there--or at least did some work there when he wasn't visiting a Web site that promotes extramarital affairs.

Bradley Arant also has contributed heavily to Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, who picked up the e-bingo battle from Bob Riley. As of July 2013, BABC had received $364,000 in public funds to help Strange's office fight e-bingo. The firm had contributed $21,000 to Strange during and after his 2010 campaign, so those numbers reflect a 1,730 percent return on investment for BABC.

Rob Campbell is a partner in the firm’s Birmingham, Alabama office, where his practice is comprised of a broad range of complex commercial litigation, including financial institution, class action, multidistrict and parallel proceedings, insurance coverage and sales practices litigation. Rob also counsels clients with respect to insurance regulatory issues and regulatory investigations.

Much of Rob’s practice is devoted to defending insurance and financial services litigation, particularly class action and opt-out litigation, throughout the Southeast. His clients include Liberty National Life Insurance Company, MONY Life Insurance Company, The Principal Financial Group, Jefferson Pilot Life Insurance Company, AXA-Equitable Insurance Company, GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company, The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, and Southland National Insurance Corporation, among others.

Are all of Rob Campbell's clients now indirectly tied to the Ashley Madison scandal? That's hard to say, but we know that at least one of them--Liberty National Life Insurance--is directly connected to Ashley Madison.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

If you ever are in a court case and complain that the opposing side is writing orders for the judge, a lawyer is likely to say something along the lines of, "Oh, that's common practice. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it."

That, of course, is easy for him to say. He hasn't been in a case where the opposing party is writing orders, which include wildly inaccurate citations to law, and he winds up in jail because of it.

I have been in that position. In fact, I'm going to show you exactly how an opposing party can write orders that are not remotely supported by law--and a compromised judge is so lazy and corrupt (or both) that he lets it go.

We are talking about Judge Claud Neilson's order that granted a preliminary injunction against me in the Rob Riley and Liberty Duke defamation case. Evidence in the record suggests that members of Riley's own law firm, probably Jay Murrill in most instances, wrote every order in the case--and Neilson simply rubber stamped them.

Was this an important order? Well, it caused me to go to jail for five months. It also was intended to send my wife, Carol, to jail--even though she had nothing to do with writing, editing, or administering my blog. Thankfully, Shelby County, Alabama, sheriff's deputies failed to abduct her, and she was able to spread news about what had happened to me--turning the case into a national and international news story, with reports from The New York Times, Al-Jazeera, and many lesser known news outlets of both the mainstream and non-traditional varieties.

In Neilson's order, Riley's lawyers cite 13 cases that purport to show that a preliminary injunction is a lawful remedy in a defamation case. The citations start in the second paragraph on page 2 and continue in Footnote 3. (You can read the order at the end of this post.)

The Riley lawyers introduce their legal handiwork by stating: "Injunctive relief can be an appropriate and effective remedy to repeated and ongoing defamatory speech." To support this notion, they cite a case styled South v. City of Mountain Brook, 688 So. 2d 292 (Ala Crim. App., 1996), followed by a footnote that refers the reader to 12 other cases that supposedly say more or less the same thing.

There is a slight problem, however, with all of this. The South case does not remotely say what Team Riley claims it says--and neither do the 12 cases cited in the footnotes. I'm not the only individual to make note of this--so have multiple legal experts.

As First Amendment expert Ken White wrote at the Popehat blog, "It appears that the drafter of this order simply scoured the nation for the handful of outlier cases saying something positive about injunctions against defamation — plus the tiny number of cases approving them pretrial — while completely ignoring the authority (including from the United States Supreme Court) that such injunctions are inappropriate." Actually, it's worse than that--none of these cases says anything positive about injunctions against defamation, and none of them approved an injunction pretrial.

On top of that, almost all of them are from state courts outside of Alabama or federal district courts. In other words, they have zero precedential value--even if they were remotely on point, which they aren't.

What is the truth, from a legal standpoint? Neilson's preliminary injunction runs contrary to more than 200 years of First Amendment law; it's a classic "prior restraint," and there is no law to support what he did--what Riley's lawyers asked him to do.

Here is a brief rundown of the cases Team Riley cites, with a description of their actual findings and links so you can read the cases yourself, if you so desire. It will soon become clear that Riley's lawyers committed a not-so-subtle fraud--and it caused me to unlawfully lose five months of my freedom:

Key holding: In the wake of Cochran's death, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a state-ordered injunction but did not address the constitutional issues raised.

Our verdict: This is the only case on the Riley list that had the potential to set precedent in Alabama and throughout the country. But SCOTUS found that, because of Cochran's death, it would be unwarranted to address the issues raised by Tory's appeal.

Background: A woman was found at trial to have defamed the owners of a restaurant/bar that she felt had become a nuisance in her neighborhood.

Holding: A permanent injunction, after a finding of defamation at trial, can be proper if its terms are not overly broad and are limited. A preliminary injunction, which by definition comes before a trial, is unlawful.

Our verdict: Balboa's holding is the exact opposite of what Team Riley claims. It is a negative finding about preliminary injunctions.

Background: An Ohio recycling company claimed a competing company in Texas had made defamatory statements and engaged in tortious interference.

Holding: After Texamet failed to oppose summary judgment, a federal magistrate judge recommended certain damages, while acknowledging that his finding might cross the boundary into unlawful prior restraint. After Texamet failed to challenge the magistrate's recommendation, the district court upheld the damages and then remitted them, on certain conditions, while again acknowledging the problem of prior restraint. Strangely, the district judge claimed the case did not even involve an injunction. We can find no record that the case was appealed to a circuit court.

Our verdict: As the district judge stated, this case was not about an injunction; it was about a Texas company failing to adequately respond to a lawsuit brought against it in an Ohio federal court. The gist of the ruling is that Texamet did not defend itself, and here is a solid analysis of the court's actions, which really don't make much sense and almost certainly would be reversed if Texamet appealed.

We are roughly a fourth of the way through the cases cited in Judge Neilson's order. We will pick up with the rest of them in an upcoming post, and we promise that things won't look any better for Riley and his team. They lied about the real contents of the first four cases, and they lied about the rest of them, too.

UAB fans tend to see St. John and Bryant Jr. as demonic allies who are hell-bent on undercutting programs at the Birmingham campus. Blazer fans seem to have a blinding hatred for both St. John and Bryant--and my guess is that those feelings are justified.

For now, though, let's focus on Finis St. John IV and The New York Times. You might not expect a lawyer from Cullman, Alabama, to have ties to one of the world's most famous newspapers, but you would be wrong.

Finis St. John's cousin is Birmingham native Warren St. John, a former reporter in the Times' Style section. One of Warren St. John's former colleagues in the Style section is Campbell Robertson, a Montevallo, Alabama, native who now primarily covers the South and wrote the article about my incarceration.

Warren St. John has left the newspaper to focus on his career as an author. He has written two well-received books--Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer: A Road Trip Into the Heart of Fan Mania (2004) and Outcasts United: An American Town, A Refugee Team, and One Woman's Quest to Make a Difference (2009).

Are Warren St. John and Campbell Robertson close? It seems likely, considering their shared Alabama roots, their stints in the same department at The New York Times, and the photo of the two of them we found at a 2005 book party for one of our favorite comedians and commentators--Bill Maher, of HBO.

Finis St. John IV

Does it stand to reason that Finis St. John, via his cousin and his own position of power at UA, might have some pull with Campbell Robertson? Could that pull be even stronger when it comes at the behest of St. John's trustee colleague, Paul Bryant Jr.

* He seeks out Los Angeles First Amendment lawyer Ken White, author of the Popehat blog, as an expert about my case. White makes several accurate legal points, but Robertson allows him to take a number of personal digs at me--even though White does not know me, has never spoken to me or attempted to interview me, and clearly knows very little about my treacherous journey through Alabama courts;

* Robertson quotes multiple experts saying that the judge in my case acted contrary to law. But Robertson never bothers to name the judge (Claud Dent Neilson). and no editor at the prestigious newspaper managed to catch such a flagrant omission.

If Finis St. John pushed for the Times article, what might have been his motivations? If Paul Bryant Jr. played a role in my incarceration, and I think that is highly likely, I can think of several:

(1) The two trustees were concerned that my incarceration had drawn national and international attention in the press;

(2) They were concerned that an enterprising reporter might finally look in their direction for explanations;

(3) They wanted to portray me as a loon who hates all lawyers and regularly gets sued for defamation, thus making it harder to obtain legal counsel;

(5) If I had retained a lawyer, or was about to retain one, they wanted to know who it was so they could attempt to "manage" my lawyer and turn him or her against me--thus, limiting their own exposure;

(6) They wanted to hurt my credibility as a journalist by getting a prominent newspaper to write a story about me that is filled with falsehoods.

Many questions remain unanswered on this subject, but this much is clear: Campbell Robertson had a chance to write a profoundly important article about an attack on constitutional freedoms in the Deep South, but he wound up producing a piece that would have gotten a first-year journalism student kicked out of school.

Why is that? I think Campbell Robertson probably is a capable reporter on most occasions, so why did he flop so badly on this one? A reasonable person might conclude it's because powerful forces in Alabama did not want him to produce a real piece of journalism in the first place--and a once-proud newspaper has slipped so badly that a substandard article actually found its way into print.

Chad Belville, who also serves as general counsel, said the company was receiving inquiries from other media outlets, and he would let me know what the research turned up. Belville never got back to me, and he has not responded to e-mails seeking an update.

Does that mean the company started receiving political pressure--from the right, the left, or both--and decided to keep its information under wraps? Did the company see news of my kidnapping and incarceration and decided to call off plans to research the Bill Pryor topic? Was my "arrest" designed as a warning to Badpuppy, and perhaps others, that the Pryor story had better be left alone? The answer to the first two questions is yes, in my view. And I wouldn't be surprised if the answer to the third question also is yes.

Badpuppy'shome base for roughly 20 years has been Cocoa, Florida. That just happens to be in the U.S. Eleventh Circuit (along with Alabama and Georgia), where one of the sitting judges is William H. Pryor. Is it possible that federal judges in the Eleventh Circuit could cause a lot of problems for a gay-porn company that helped disrobe one of its brethren? It doesn't require a lot of imagination to come up with an answer to that question

My communications with Belville have not turned up anything new about Bill Pryor. But they do provide insight into a company that has become a "super store" of gay pornography online. For example, the company was sold not long before we broke the Pryor story here at Legal Schnauzer. And while Badpuppy is known for its digital presence, its record keeping is, to a great extent, from the world of yesteryear. Here is what Belville wrote in an e-mail dated September 22, 2013--which was one month and one day before my unlawful arrest:

The records for the site as it existed in 1997 are in file cabinets -- about 3 dozen of them -- and we are going to start digging into those files Monday morning. Other news outlets have begun to contact us regarding the nude image that was published on Badpuppy and we'd like to find some evidence that either supports the assumption that image is in fact Judge Pryor or shows that it is not him. . . .

I look at the photographs and I believe that is a young Bill Pryor.

Sincerely,

Chad Belville
CFO and General Counsel, Badpuppy Enterprises Inc.

So, we've established that a top executive at badpuppy.com thinks the photo is of the Bill Pryor--not that I had any doubt about that. Here is my response to Belville:

Thanks for contacting me, Chad.

As you might have seen on my blog, I have three sources who were connected to a law-enforcement investigation that commenced upon receipt of a tip about the images in 1997--Pryor was set to be appointed Alabama attorney general at the time. Those sources say their investigation showed the images were of the Bill Pryor who now is a federal judge, and that's what my story is based upon.

I'm intrigued by the notation at the top of the WizardBoy Gallery that says the images were from a private collector named Ernie. Seems to be a clue about their origins.

I hope we can stay in touch.

As for the mysterious Ernie, we now suspect he was Ernie Potvin, the late writer and archivist who was well known in the gay-rights movement, especially on the West Coast. Ernie Potvin was extremely well connected, and several of his friends have been in touch with us about information on the likely origins of the Bill Pryor photos, which reportedly number between 10 and 15.

Bill Pryor

As for Chad Belville, we learned that he thinks like a prosecutor--because he used to be one. And he offered some intriguing legal insights about the Pryor story:

Thank you for your response Roger!

I'm hoping to find out more about the circumstances surrounding the removal of those pages from the websites in 1997. I was a prosecutor in 1999-2002 and I still think like one -- there is something fishy that happened here. If those images were removed to protect Pryor and Pryor knew about it, then Pryor intentionally covered up or failed to disclose he posed nude, he committed ethical violations. In a lot of high profile cases it is not the original act that gets a person in trouble, it is the attempted cover up. The impeachment of President Clinton was not for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office, he was accused of lying to Congress about it. Martha Stewart didn't get prosecuted for insider trading, she was prosecuted for lying to investigators.

Hopefully our internal searches at Badpuppy will uncover the truth about the images. I will let you know if we find anything.

Sincerely,

Chad

As you probably can tell, Chad Belville seems like a sharp guy, and I enjoyed my limited communication with him. He's in a key position at a company in transition, so it's possible he never found the time to do thorough research on the Pryor issue. It's also possible that political pressure from Pryor's protectors on the right convinced the company that it would be best to lay low on the subject.

And here is something for Schnauzer readers to ponder: I've seen signs that certain political forces on the left do not want the Pryor photos out there--at least not any more than they already have been. In fact, I've had one or two well-known media figures on the left try to discredit my reporting and not-so-subtly steer me away from the story.

Why would that be? Well, I have quite a bit of information on the subject. I also have a theory about what caused blow back from the left. If my theory proves correct, it is a fascinating story indeed--one tied to recent and historic news events.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Marie Torre, without doubt, is the most famous U.S. journalist to be jailed in a civil case. That might be in part because Torre's incarceration came from writing about a famous person--the late actress Judy Garland.

Torre went on, however, to be a journalism pioneer in her own right. That's good because a record she once held now has been surpassed--by yours truly.

How big was the case that landed Marie Torre in jail? You can get a feel for that by viewing the newsreel footage, via YouTube, at the end of this post.

Garland sued for defamation, and Torre went to jail when a judge held her in criminal contempt for refusing to identify her source during depositions. For 56 years, Torre's 10-day stay in jail stood as the longest for a U.S. journalist in a civil matter, one that had nothing to do with allegations of criminal activity.

That record fell, in a big way, when I was jailed for 155 days--from October 23, 2013, until March 26, 2014--because of a defamation lawsuit that Alabama GOP political operative Rob Riley and lobbyist Liberty Duke filed. Circuit Judge Claud Neilson ordered me held for alleged civil contempt of a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction. I broke Torre's record largely because civil contempt is open ended--Neilson ordered me jailed until certain items were removed from this blog--while criminal contempt usually is limited to a relatively brief time frame--perhaps five or 10 days.

In my case, it neither was lawful nor effective. More than 200 years of First Amendment law, most famously found in the landmark 1931 U.S. Supreme Court case Near v. Minnesota, holds that TROs and preliminary injunctions are unlawful prior restraints in defamation cases. I spent five months in jail for writing articles that never have been found to be defamatory at trial; in fact, there never was a trial in my case. And there was no jury because Riley and Duke, inexplicably, did not seek one--even though longstanding law holds that defamation cases must be heard by a jury, so that a judge cannot act as a one-man censor.

The civil contempt in my case wasn't effective because, like Garland v. Torre, it attracted national and international news. The New York Times and Al-Jazeera were among the numerous news outlets that spread the supposedly defamatory information about Riley and Duke around the world. Civil contempt is designed to be coercive, to force someone to do something, such as pay child support. But it loses its purpose when a lawsuit causes the alleged defamatory news to be spread around the globe.

More importantly, a journalist cannot lawfully be found in contempt of a TRO or injunction that is an unlawful prior restraint to begin with. Despite that, I likely still would be in jail if my wife, Carol, had not figured out how to remove certain information from my blog.

I never thought I would live to see the day when anyone would be thrown into the jug for saying Judy Garland had problems. . . . Stripping the current celebrated cause of its legal passementerie, Miss Torre lost her freedom for refusing to say who told her that Judy had an inferiority complex, would not make up her mind about anything, and was 'terribly fat.'

That is like being sent to the Bastille for reporting that the weather was cold yesterday and the Empire State Building is situated at Fifth Ave. and 34th St.

Marie Torre went on to become the first female anchor (1962-77) at KDKA-TV in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and was one of the first female anchors in the country. Perhaps being the target of a misguided lawsuit helped her career, I, for one, certainly hope so.

I guess Marie Torre and I will always be kindred spirits of a sort. I have become one of her fans and find myself periodically looking up information about her on the Web. If jail is hard on a man--and I can tell you for sure that it is--I can only guess that it is even more unpleasant for a woman. That Marie Torre stood her ground, and stood up for freedom of the press, tells me she had principles that should be admired.

Miss Torre, who shortened her last name from Torregrossa, was born in Brooklyn. She joined the Herald Tribune staff in 1955. As a radio and television columnist in 1957, she quoted a CBS executive, whom she did not name, as saying that Judy Garland was balking about doing a CBS special ''because she thinks she is terribly fat.''

Miss Garland sued the network for $1.39 million, and Miss Torre, as a witness in a pretrial hearing, was ordered by the court to disclose the name of her source. She refused, arguing that a reporter should not be compelled to reveal sources in court because such an order violated the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedom.

''She never revealed his name, even to members of our family,'' Mr. Lopez said yesterday.

But our inquiry does not end there. We also know that Baxley has strong ties to University of Alabama trustee Paul Bryant Jr. Baxley, a rising political star in the 1970s, was friends with the late Crimson Tide football coach Paul "Bear" Bryant, and that apparently helped make him close to Bryant's son, who has built a business empire while mostly dodging a federal investigation of insurance fraud in the late 1990s.

Is it possible that Neilson, via his pal Baxley, also is close to Bryant Jr.? Is it possible the three of them participated in a conspiracy to have me thrown in jail because of my reporting on certain subjects at this blog?

We don't have a definitive answer to those questions. But we do know that I am the reporter who broke the story about Bryant's ties to an insurance-fraud scam that resulted in a 15-year federal prison sentence for a Pennsylvania lawyer/entrepreneur named Allen W. Stewart. We also know that I was the primary source for an article at Bloomberg Marketsthat brought Bryant's connections to insurance fraud to a national and international audience. (See the print version of the article at the end of this post.)

Perhaps most importantly, at the time of my arrest I was researching an article about Jessica Garrison's ties to an individual who allegedly was involved in an activity that is extremely sensitive in college-athletics circles. As the No. 1 financial supporter of Crimson Tide athletics, and one of the most powerful boosters in college athletics, Bryant likely was concerned about my reporting efforts (which are ongoing, by the way).

How close does the trail of this unsavory activity get to Bryant? We aren't sure--yet--but the trail clearly leads through Tuscaloosa, Alabama, which is Bryant's home base.

Why was I unlawfully thrown in jail, losing my freedom for five months, and who was responsible for it? I suspect there were multiple reasons I was targeted--multiple stories I was working on that made powerful figures nervous and angry.

But Claud Neilson and Bill Baxley clearly were central players in the scheme, and they have connections that span more than four decades. Baxley and Bryant Jr. have connections that span at least that long, maybe longer.

As a side note, a source close to the Baxley family tells us the one-time gubernatorial candidate and legal maverick has been seriously compromised by photographic evidence of certain activities that took place during a Las Vegas trip that involved heavy drinking and gambling. In essence, our source says, powerful interests have kept copies of said photographic evidence for several years as a way of keeping "Dollar Bill" in line.

That might explain why Baxley, a Democrat in theory, now is quick to jump in the legal bed with such corporate, right-wing types as Rob Riley, Jessica Medeiros Garrison, Sonny Reagan, and Luther Strange. (That, too, is a story where our research is ongoing and might soon yield explosive results.)

As for Bryant Jr., evidence suggests his already privileged life might have been a bit more comfortable with the demise of Legal Schnauzer. Is that why the blog's publisher wound up in jail--and did Bryant Jr. enlist the help of Baxley and Neilson to make sure it happened?

We are continuing to examine that question--and it appears we are getting closer and closer to an answer.

Monday, August 17, 2015

Alabama attorney David Gespass told Peter B. Collins' radio audience in an October 29, 2013, interview that the preliminary injunction issued in the Rob Riley and Liberty Duke defamation lawsuit was "insane." In a letter to my wife, Carol, and me--dated two days later--Gespass said the judge's actions were "questionable."

On the Collins show, Gespass also questioned the actions of a Shelby County deputy who entered our home, beat me up, and doused me with pepper spray--all without showing a warrant, saying he had a warrant, or bothering to tell me why he was on our property. In his letter to Carol and me, Gespass made no mention of law-enforcement officers and their apparent misdeeds.

Why the remarkable difference in tones? I have my own theories about that, but we invite you to come to your own conclusions. Following are excerpts from the Collins interview, and the letter can be viewed at this link, plus it is embedded at the end of this post. The full Collins interview can be heard here.

The oddities start right up front in the Collins interview. Gespass says Circuit Judge Claud D. Neilson used the wrong standard in finding that my reporting was defamatory. Don't you think that might have been of interest to potential clients? Gespass never mentioned it to Carol and me.

Gespass actually talks on the Collins show like a legitimate lawyer, one who is alarmed about what has been done to a journalist in his community, and he raises a number of important legal issues. Here's the question: Why didn't he communicate in the same fashion with us? He spent much of his two jailhouse visits with me tossing a pencil up in the air and catching it, like a third grader. Given that, and the tone of the letter he sent between visits, is it any wonder I eventually told him to get the hell out and don't come back?

The Collins interview proves that Gespass isn't stupid; in my view, he just wasn't being forthright with us--and the obvious question is: Why? Here are highlights from the Gespass interview with Peter B. Collins:

The public-figure standard--"Rob Riley is a public figure, which means to prove defamation, you have to prove not only that the statement is false, but it was made with knowledge of its falsity. The idea of a preliminary injunction telling somebody they can’t publish defamatory statements in the future--and that's what this injunction does--is insane; it’s clearly unconstitutional."

The actual law that governs defamation cases--"If you say something that’s defamatory, you can be sued for it and get money damages. It's possible at the end--and this is a matter of some debate--that after a finding of defamation you conceivably could get an injunction from repeating the specific statements that were found to be false. In this case, if Riley and Duke are able to prove they never did have an affair, to the satisfaction of a jury, then I think it would be within the bounds of reasonableness to say to Roger, "You can’t make these allegations." Even then, if you get further information, even that may change. (Notice that Gespass references a jury trial; he never made such a reference to us. His emphasis was to get the matter "resolved as quickly as possible.")

An injunction pulled from thin air--"Riley got an injunction issued without Roger appearing in court to respond, and that is unheard of. There is no legal justification that I know of to get an injunction without a full hearing on the merits—and that’s never taken place here." (Why did Carol and I not appear in court? Gespass' letter explains it. He says, after reviewing the sealed record, that we never were served in the case, and no summons was issued until long after Neilson had granted the preliminary injunction. In other words, we didn't go to court because we weren't lawfully summoned to court.)

Why was the case sealed?--"I can’t even go online to get the documents. I understand they are pretty voluminous. I’ve been in touch with Riley’s lawyer, and he’s going to send them, but he said there is more than he can send by e-mail. Why the case is sealed is beyond me. It's quite unusual. In general, that happens when you have something that involves a juvenile. I had a case where a 13-year-old boy charged abuse against a police officer. All we had there was the boy's name was redacted. But sealing an entire file is extremely rare."

Why would plaintiffs want a defamation case sealed?--"By filing suit, it calls more attention to it than it otherwise would have. It seems odd, under those circumstances, that plaintiffs would want the case sealed. If they want to prove the allegations are false, you’d think they would want to do it publicly. If you file suit for defamation, as a public figure, you want to make it a public issue."

How was I supposed to get out of jail?--"This is really bizarre. There are two kinds of contempt—civil and criminal. Civil usually is if you have to pay child support. It's coercive, as opposed to punishment. Once you do what you are supposed to do, you get out of jail. Criminal contempt is punishment, and there are limits to how long you can be placed in jail. I have no idea which it is, and [Roger] has been given no indication of what he has to do to purge the contempt--and no idea how long he's going to be in there. . . . He's sitting there with no idea when he will get out and no idea what he has to do in order to get out. That doesn't make any sense."

Did I "ignore a court order"? No--"Roger actually filed a motion to quash, so he entered an appearance. I don’t know if he was ever served with the injunction; he might have been served with the temporary restraining order. (The sealed file, according to Gespass, shows we were served with neither.) Judges are supposed to give pro se litigants leeway because they are not trained in the law . . . and all of this was done when [Roger] didn't have a lawyer to represent him and without him ever having actually appeared in court."

What about cops entering our house with no reference to a warrant?--"My assumption is that there was a pickup order based on contempt. The question there is, they went into his house uninvited. If they have a pickup order, and they see him there, they probably have a right to be there. But I think they have some responsibility to tell him the reason they want him and why he’s being taken into custody."

What were our legal options?--"The first option probably would be a motion to set aside the temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on the grounds that they are unconstitutional-- and get his immediate release based on that. The other possible course of action would be some sort of extraordinary writ to the [Alabama] Supreme Court . . . , asking them to order the lower court to set aside the injunction and release him. Unfortunately, that will take some time to figure out, which is the best and the quickest way to do it. . . . It's not inconceivable that this would go into federal court, but federal courts don't like to involve themselves in state-court issues, so you would want to get as full a record as possible before going there. I would hope that would not necessary."

Did Judge Neilson abuse his discretion?--"The standard for criminal contempt is five days in jail, and with two counts, that conceivably could be 10 days. The standard for civil contempt is that the order must set out specifically what you must do to purge yourself of contempt. Since no one has seen the order, I'm not sure there is anything that says that. You can ask a judge to reconsider something that is, on its face, so completely contrary to principles of free speech. This is, after all, the First Amendment."

Why did David Gespass say one thing on the Peter B. Collins Show and something very different to his would-be clients? The answer is clear to me: Collins is based in San Francisco, and his show has a solid national and international following among progressives, so Gespass wanted to sound to that audience like an intelligent, informed lawyer, one concerned about constitutional rights. But behind closed doors, his instinct was to protect the legal tribe--probably because he knows that's what the hopelessly corrupt Alabama State Bar expects its members to do.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

The University of Illinois began dismissal proceedings yesterday against former Chancellor Phyllis Wise amid online reports that members of the Wise administration had received warnings about possible criminal penalties for hiding e-mails related to withdrawal of a job offer to a controversial scholar.

Does that mean the university is trying to distance itself from Wise because of fears about a possible criminal investigation? That is not clear at the moment, but online reports show Wise had been warned that civil and criminal penalties were a possibility if she and other administrators tried to conceal their official communications by using private e-mail accounts.

What about warnings regarding possible criminal sanctions at UI? Wise and other top administrators received such a warning last September, according to a report from Ali Abunimah at the blog electronicintifada.net. From Abunimah's report:

In an 18 September 2014 email related to Salaita, Chancellor Wise wrote from her private account that university spokesperson Robin Kaler “has warned me and others not to use email since we are now in litigation phase. We are doing virtually nothing over our Illinois email addresses. I am even being careful with this email address and deleting after sending.”

The very next day, university employees connected with the Salaita matter, undoubtedly including Wise and others participating in the secret email exchanges, received a warning called a legal hold from the university’s external law firm Perkins Coie.

Another report comes from Andrew Scheinman, Ph.D., J.D., an attorney who has played a pivotal role in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests that brought the UI e-mail scandal to light. At his investigative online site Samizdat-Startups.org, Scheinman presents evidence that Wise likely was advised of her duty to preserve evidence even earlier than September 2014. Explains Abunimah:

[Scheinman] notes that soon after a 24 July 2014 board meeting at which Salaita was discussed, the name of Scott Rice, the university’s in-house counsel, begins appearing in Salaita-related emails previously released to him under FOIA. Everything in the emails is redacted except for Rice’s name.

“This kind of redaction – nothing but the attorney’s name – indicates UIUC is likely claiming attorney client privilege, which it would only do if they were discussing, e.g., a litigation matter such as likely litigation by Salaita,” Scheinman told The Electronic Intifada.

The fact that Wise and other officials expected, or should have expected, litigation long before the formal legal hold was sent out suggests they already had a legal duty to preserve evidence during a period when Wise admitted to deleting emails.

“I would think Rice would have taken great pains to point out to Wise early on his – Rice’s – duty to UIUC – his client – to prevent any UIUC employees including Wise from destroying documents,” Scheinman said.

“My conclusion is that Wise was likely advised of possible or likely litigation as early as 25 July 2014,” Scheinman added.

What does this tell us about the situation at the University of Illinois? It could mean that the ugliness related to a cover-up in the Stephen Salaita case is just beginning, with the looming possibility that the campus' former chief executive will face criminal charges.

What does it tell us about my experience at UAB? It's too early to say for sure, but we will show in an upcoming post that the UAB administration, led then by President Carol Garrison, received notice that I planned to file a lawsuit, that it should ensure related evidence was preserved. We also will show that UAB balked at my notice, even though it ultimately did not have to turn over any evidence because Judge Acker unlawfully granted the university summary judgment without allowing any discovery.

The Salaita case shows that higher-education officials can take extraordinarily dumb, unethical (and maybe unlawful) steps when they are dealing with an employee they knowingly have cheated out of a job. What happened to the evidence that UAB should have been forced to turn over in my lawsuit? What would a FOIA request show about UAB officials and their behind-the-scenes actions in my case? Were UAB officials involved in a possible criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice and encourage Acker to make unlawful rulings in my case?

In other words, did UAB officials engage in a cover-up similar to the one at the University of Illinois? Is it possible that a UAB scheme was even more evil than the one at UI because it led all the way to a federal judge?

Given Acker's age, some might explain this ruling as a sign of senility or some form of advancing dementia. But court records show that Acker knows the law requires discovery before summary judgment can be considered, much less granted. Records show that Acker, over and over, has ordered discovery, even in employment cases very much like mine.

So this wasn't an accident, or the result of an impaired judge. This was the result of a judge who is morally and ethically bankrupt, and his own words and actions prove it.

This Title VII case revolves around repeated churlish, childish, gross, sordid, vulgar, foul, disgusting, profane utterances in the workplace. The question in the case, however, is not how vile and obnoxious this workplace language was. It was vile and obnoxious enough to score nine on a scale of ten. This will become apparent as the story unfolds. The question for the court is rather whether this verbal mayhem morphed from a competition to see who could beat whom in the foul-mouth game into a cause of action under Title VII by an offended employee for same-sex sexual harassment.

How did Acker know the language was "vile and obnoxious enough to score nine on a scale of ten"? The parties conducted discovery, and facts obtained during the process show the language was, indeed, nasty. In fact, in footnote 6 of his opinion, Acker quotes directly from several depositions taken during discovery.

That establishes the obvious--discovery is necessary before a determination on summary judgment, even in an employment case, with William Acker as judge.

It is a widely known (and widely quoted) maxim that “the deposition-discovery rules [under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947). “[E]ither party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.” Id. Thus, plaintiff’s motion must be granted so long as he meets the low bar set out for him in Rule 26: his request
must be for “nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2).

In the context of my case against UAB, I was entitled to "broad and liberal" discovery. Instead, I was denied discovery altogether.

Acker goes on in Hunt to explain why the plaintiff not only must be allowed discovery in general, but why he is due to receive particular items in discovery:

The analysis of this low bar is uncomplicated. Among plaintiff’s claims is that defendant called him using an illegal automatic dialer, and among defendant’s defenses is that, on the contrary, it used manual dialing in all of its communications with plaintiff. Obviously, plaintiff is not required to take defendant’s word for it; it is precisely these types of factual disputes for which discovery exists.

Acker then chastises the defendant for claiming the "evidence is undisputed":

Second, defendant’s claim that “the evidence is undisputed” is one it must save for summary judgment or some other later stage of this litigation. Indeed, the very purpose of the instant motion is to make the evidence disputed. Plaintiff is not required to accept defendant’s claims that all calls were made manually; in short, he is free to argue before a jury, whether rightly or wrongly, that defendant’s assertion is a lie or an error, and that in fact defendant did make “numerous calls by illegal automatic dialers and/or predictive dialers . . . at all hours of the day and night. . . .” Should he choose to do so, he is permitted under the federal discovery rules to obtain information from defendant with which to support his argument.

This all raises some obvious questions: Why didn't discovery exist to address factual disputes in my case against UAB? Why was I not allowed, via discovery, to show that UAB's assertions were lies or errors? Why was I not allowed, via discovery, to obtain information to support my arguments?

The likely answer? Hunt was not facing powerful political defendants. I was, in the form of the Riley Machine, especially then "first son" Rob Riley, and Acker felt duty bound to protect his "conservative" brethren--no matter what the law says.

University attorneys undoubtedly invoked some of the same arguments--qualified and sovereign immunity, etc.--that they used in an effort to avoid discovery in my case. Those arguments didn't work in Huntley because, as shown by Acker's own words in the Hunt case, the plaintiff was entitled to conduct discovery that would counter UAB's arguments.

Dr. Huntley was not successful in denying summary judgment to the university. But he was allowed to conduct discovery. From Acker's memorandum opinion in the case:

Additionally, Dr. Huntley admitted in his deposition that he is not a full-time faculty member: Q: Okay. So you are a part-time faculty member, correct? A: Well, I am – yes, I guess I am, you could say I am a part-time faculty member. (Doc. 35-1, at 26:3-7.)

How could Acker quote from Dr. Huntley's deposition? Because discovery had been conducted, and the deposition was entered into the record. That's the way a case against UAB must be conducted, under the law. But my case was not handled that way at all.

The concept of "equal protection of the laws" obviously means nothing to William Acker. I had to be singled out for a cheat job in court--on top of a cheat job in the workplace--because Acker's right-wing buddies from Riley Inc. were behind my termination at UAB.

No one connected to the Rileys was behind the alleged discrimination against Horace Huntley, so his lawyers were able to conduct discovery, as required by law. Acker wasn't concerned about what discovery might turn up in the Huntley case. But he sure as heck was concerned about what he knew discovery would turn up in my case. So he made sure that no discovery took place.

Is this infuriating for my wife, Carol, and me? Of course it is. With a termination on my employment record--not to mention a bogus incarceration, also driven by Rob Riley--it's been almost impossible for me to find a job. The ability to work, to support ourselves, essentially has been stolen from us--so that makes Acker's blatantly unlawful actions deeply personal.

But the thoughtful reader will realize this goes way beyond Carol and me. The right to "equal protection of the laws" supposedly is guaranteed under the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. It might be the single most profound provision in the constitution.

But a corrupt judge like William Acker has no respect for the law--or the oath he took to uphold it. This post, based on public records, makes that abundantly clear. If Americans stay silent about judges like Acker--if we allow rogues like him to chip away at our constitutional rights--we eventually will find ourselves living in a country that does not resemble a democracy.

The record indicates Vowell took a number of steps to ensure the Cashion case would wind up before Circuit Judge Robert Vance Jr. on the Commercial Litigation Docket, which since has been discontinued after being found to be unconstitutional. Vance then made four critical rulings in favor of the Cashion plaintiffs, all before the case even was assigned to him. The plaintiffs--surprise, surprise--wound up prevailing on every issue in the case, but the real winners might have been the lawyers for Cashion.
Who were those lawyers? They were James P. Naftel, Tony G. Miller, and John D. Bethany Jr., from the Birmingham firm of Maynard Cooper and Gale. A shareholder, and one of 11 founding members of the Maynard firm, is George G. Lynn. With more than 40 years in the legal profession, Lynn holds senior status in one of Alabama's most prestigious firms--and it seems fair to say that he is a boss to the three lawyers in the Cashion case.

Who is George Lynn's brother? Why, that would be Henry Lynn Jr., the high-level executive at Sterne Agee who is known for his close ties to Scott Vowell. And Vowell, as presiding judge, helped ensure that George Lynn's law firm received extraordinarily favorable treatment--and lots of money--in the Cashion case. The record shows that Cashion prevailed in the case, but the big winners appear to be the lawyers from Maynard Cooper and Gale. (See document at the end of this post.)

Vowell apparently made sure the case would wind up in Judge Vance's court. Just how shady were Vance's actions and rulings? Consider the following, from the record:

* The case originally was assigned to Circuit Judge Houston Brown. Maynard lawyers went to Brown's chambers and asked him to transfer the case to Vance. Brown told them that such a request would have to go to the presiding judge, and he referred the matter to Vowell.

* Vowell was not immediately available for a ruling, but less than one hour after Brown entered his referral order, Maynard lawyers went to Vance and asked him to make a ruling in a case to which he was not assigned.

* Vance made the ruling as requested and went on to make three other rulings while the case was not assigned to him.

At the heart of the controversy is William B. Cashion, an 84-year-old businessman who is co-founder of Bessemer-based Western Steel Inc. (WSI) and a shareholder in several other Alabama corporate entities. In 2007, while in the midst of a divorce, Cashion executed a durable power of attorney, designating his nephew, Dr. Steven Mark Hayden, as his agent and attorney-in-fact. Acting in that capacity, Hayden established a Nevada trust to protect assets when his uncle began investing heavily in an Alabama gold mine.

Vance issued four rulings in the Cashion case, even though the matter was not assigned to him. All four rulings were favorable to Cashion and his attorneys from the Birmingham firm Maynard Cooper and Gale (MCG), which has contributed heavily to Vance's election campaigns. In fact, public records show that MCG lawyers gave at least $3,600 to Vance's most recent campaign, and that far exceeds the $2,000 threshold set by Alabama law, requiring Vance's recusal.

What about some of the key issues where Vance favored his financial supporters at Maynard Cooper and Gale?

* The case was filed in the wrong jurisdiction. None of the parties lived or maintained a principal place of business in the Birmingham Division of Jefferson County. Maynard lawyers apparently filed it in the Birmingham Division because they wanted the case under the control of Vowell and Vance.

* Maynard lawyers promptly sought a transfer of the case to the Commercial Litigation Docket, which would put it before Vance.

* On the day the case was filed, Vance signed a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) at the request of Maynard lawyers, even though the case was not assigned to him. The Hayden defendants alleged that the TRO, plus Vance's other extra-judicial orders (including a preliminary injunction), prevented them from nurturing the Nevada trust, causing a loss of more than $20 million.

* Vance denied the Hayden defendants their right to a jury trial, even though they timely made such a demand in their answer. That ensured Vance would control the case without interference from a jury.

* Vance denied multiple motions for his recusal, even though state records show he had received $3,600 in campaign contributions from the Maynard firm, well above the $2,000 threshold that requires his recusal under state law.

George Lynn of
Maynard Cooper Gale

In a document styled Response to Plaintiff's Post-Trial Filings,Hayden attorney Austin Burdick, of Bessemer, offered a scathing analysis of the Maynard attorneys' actions in the Cashion case. Here are some of Burdick's key points (the full document is embedded at the end of this post):

* On the Maynard lawyers' preparation of facts in Vance's final order--"Plaintiffs continue to provide pleadings to the Court that exhibit their unwavering commitment to bad faith arguments and frivolity. The courts have long frowned on orders prepared by parties for this very reason. The Supreme Court of the United States has criticized courts for adopting verbatim findings of fact prepared by a prevailing party. See Ex Parte Scott [MS. No. 1091275, 3/18/2011] __ So. 3d __ (Ala., 2011); Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 546, at 572 (1985) . . .

* On Hayden's efforts to save Cashion from participation in a mining scheme, plus the abuse of Cashion by his own lawyers, from the Maynard firm--"Cashion was defrauded of at least $6 million by fraudulent mining schemes. Cashion has also been abused by the billing practices of his own attorneys. He was billed for nearly 200 hours of work to prepare a complaint and a TRO. The TRO was a verbatim cut and paste of an earlier filed TRO from the Nevada litigation. It is beyond absurd to think that the time spent preparing a complaint was justified. The plaintiffs' bills are filled with redundancies and outrageous charges. The idea of spending nearly 200 hours to produce a complaint to satisfy notice pleading is absurd, unconscionable, and abusive."

* On the mining project in which Cashion invested heavily--"It is also beyond belief that Cashion now wants the Court to enter an order referring to 10:16 Mining as an "allegedly fraudulent" mining project. Cashion has tested the site himself and found that there is no gold there, and never was. He has pulled the reclamation bond, shut down the mine and started to plant trees on the property. . . . The project is a surface mining project. Cashion's efforts to plant trees on the site leave no doubt that he has no intentions of mining the site. Cashion was so taken by the lust for gold that he may have bought out Hayden's shares, but no evidence was ever presented that Hayden profited from any such transaction."

* On the horrendous nature of Cashion's investment in the gold project--"Cashion's involvement is not just a 'bad investment.' Independent testing of the property was done, and Cashion was informed that there were no precious metals on the property. Despite this information, he invested at least $6 million in the project. In return, he received $10.00 worth of gold. . . . Even after being informed of the fraud and witnessing the results of his investment, he continued to insist that the 'investment' was the greatest gold find east of the Mississippi. He informed his family and friends that he intended to continue to invest. Only a delusional person would insist on continuing to 'invest' under such circumstances. . . . Hayden simply undertook responsible actions to protect Cashion. There is no question that Cashion was saved millions of dollars by the actions of Defendants."

* On the Maynard firm's claim for attorney fees in excess of $1.5 million--"Plaintiffs have requested that they be awarded fees for efforts expended in other matters, in other jurisdictions. . . . The rates charged to plaintiff are simply outlandish. The reasonable rates in the community are simply not what was charged in this matter. Counsel has charged $480.00 to $345.00 per hour for shareholders and $200,00 to $225.00 per hour for associates with five or less years experience. Counsel has also billed $400.00 for travel time, a rate nearly double that charged for in-court work. It is difficult to imagine how sitting on an airplane is more taxing than presenting evidence and arguments at hearings. Counsel has also charged $170.00 per hour for paralegal services . . . this rate again is double what is customary. Counsel's rates are abusive and unwarranted."

* On the Maynard firm billing almost 200 hours before even filing its complaint--"Counsel's billing in this regard is excessive, redundant, unnecessary, and trades the role of advocate for parasiti curiae. The complaint and the cut and paste TRO motion should have taken five hours or less to compose. Counsel requests hundreds of hours for talking amongst themselves about the case. Billing for three-hour phone calls, and conferences between themselves. This pattern is repeated week after week throughout the billing records. The records submitted to the Court are a case study in elder abuse through overbilling by attorneys. In short, the bills submitted to the Court are excessive if not fraudulent."

William Cashion won the case, but it does not appear that he came out a winner. Public records indicate a gold-mining scheme took him for a ride to the tune of $6 million. When Cashion's nephew tried to put a stop to that scam, the elderly businessman found the Maynard firm to file a lawsuit--and they nailed him for more than $1.5 million in charges. The final judgment indicates Cashion did not receive anywhere near that amount in damages. (The final judgment is embedded at the end of this post.)

This seems to be a clear case of Maynard Cooper and Gale benefiting because one of its founding shareholders (George Lynn) has a brother (Henry Lynn, of Sterne Agee), who has an unusually close relationship with the man (Scott Vowell) who used to preside over the Jefferson County Courthouse.

God only knows how many other cases have been decided based on similar favoritism.